Video: “How is it that you’re the expert on my position?”
posted at 10:07 pm on January 30, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
There are a couple of ways to look at this exchange between McCain and Romney over Iraq (which I’ve edited for brevity’s sake). One, John McCain is too thick-headed to understand the difference between the words “public” and “private” and their possible impact on the timetables and benchmarks that are central to the debate. Or two, McCain does know the difference but he’s being wholly dishonest about them in order to score points on Romney. Neither possibility speaks well of McCain at all, and the entire exchange underlines the problem that he has with the base. We don’t trust him because of episodes like this. The fact is, Romney is approaching the issue much like a business leader would and he happens to be right on the facts here. Of course you keep track of data to see if your efforts are on course, but also, of course, you don’t publish the timetables etc or you’re just telling the enemy how long he has to wait. It’s common sense. McCain, for whatever reason, just dug in and defended the lie that he trotted out last weekend in Florida. It’s disgraceful. Every time I start to get used to the idea of McCain as the nominee, he pulls a stunt like this and proves that he can’t be trusted.
On the subject of the Romney December 2006 comments, which is the issue McCain retreats to when the timetables issue becomes problematic for him, it’s worth noting that when Michelle and I went to Baghdad in January 2007, we picked up on an interesting and unexpected phenomenon among the troops in Iraq. Even they weren’t wholly supportive of the surge to a man and woman. Many of the ones with whom we spoke, troops who were on the front lines in Baghdad, were skeptical that a surge in force would make the impact that the war’s supporters hoped. They didn’t favor withdrawal, but like Romney in December 2006, they wanted to know more about how the troops would be used. One of the most common comments we heard was that more bodies won’t do much good if there’s no clear purpose to how and where they’ll be deployed. This was in January 2007; we were there the day President Bush announced the surge. I hardly fault Romney for wanting to hear more detail before he put his name on the line one way or the other on the surge. That was a reasonable reaction by someone whose day job didn’t include daily studies of troop numbers and strategies in Iraq.
Update: I really wanted to see two things tonight. I wanted to see Romney take the fight to McCain and earn the front runner spot. That didn’t happen. Romney came off well but I doubt the fundamentals changed. The other thing I wanted to see was some sign that McCain was ready to be a leader and be a less irritating figure than he has been up to now. That didn’t happen either. His “I led for patriotism, not for profit” line is a slap in the face to business. A slap in the face to business, and from the presumptive nominee of the pro-business party? Who does he think he is? And where does he think his own money came from? It came from his wife’s father, who presumably led for profit, not for patriotism.
His dishonest attack on Romney’s war stance, captured above, just signals that he’s the same old McCain.
I’m now in the position of having come around to like Romney. He’s decent, smart and fair and I think he would make a fine president. And I dislike McCain all over again. He’s a smarmy beltway insider who just lied to everyone who was watching while he smeared a good man, flipped on his own awful legislation and belittled free enterprise. This man wants to lead the party of Reagan?
McCain sure has his work cut out for him at CPAC. I don’t want to say that his mission of making peace with the base is impossible, but I won’t argue that it’s not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »
Stick a fork in Romney, He is done.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 30, 2008 at 10:07 PM
So you didn’t bother to actually read the post and don’t care that McCain’s attack was entirely dishonest?
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 10:09 PM
This whole scenario was pretty rotten.. especially considering McCain has been crying about Romney attacking his amnesty policy and other liberal stances. To knowingly twist the truth in the final week before the biggest election of the campaign without a debate to set the record straight.. rotten.
henzou on January 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
McVain is both obtuse and dishonest.
Something only the most cunningly duplicitous can manage.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Romney laid the smacketh down on McCain! The Ron Paul pulled the guilt trip and smacked them both.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I do not share your opinion.
Romney was trying to play both sides, so that he could take a different position of things went bad. McCain has never wavered in his support in the slightest.
Quite frankly, the only dishonesty I see is in the slimy ads that Romney is running.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 30, 2008 at 10:12 PM
If Romney is not the nominee, it is the Republican party’s great loss.
McCain is reprehensible. He is smug, he is patronizing, he is a sleazy Washington politician inside and out. And he stoops to bringing up his captivity in a totally inappropriate way. Disgraceful and embarrassing.
ctmom on January 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Romney was dead on.
McLiar was being a sleaze by lying about Romney’s statement before the primary in Florida when Mitt had no real forum to defend himself against the pile of crap McLiar was slinging.
I would rather have a Dim in the White House than McLiar.
SimplyKimberly on January 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
I know this board is Anti McCain, but sooner or later, we all need to get behind him or concede to Hobama.
JayHaw Phrenzie on January 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
I think McCain’s response is weird here. He’s digging in on this quote which clearly doesn’t say what he claims it does. I’m not sure what his calculations on this are. There are better places to attack Romney than this one.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM
quoted for truth
trailortrash on January 30, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Of course JayHaw Phrenzie didn’t want to understand the issue under debate here.
Just like most ole ‘Cain and Huck supporters.. they don’t care about the truth.. they are like cult followers.. they follow them until they fall over the cliff.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 10:15 PM
McCain is the all-time weasel. Democrats included.
Buddahpundit on January 30, 2008 at 10:15 PM
McCain got o3wnD in that interchange…
SkinnerVic on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
McVain will lose to any Dem, Obama or Hillary, because he’s so cranky and droning and testy and ultimately indistinguishable from their own liberal aims.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Maybe. But the time for that is later. He’s not the nominee yet, and I don’t have to decide if I feel obligated to support him until he is. Now the time is for picking the best nominee for the Republican party.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
McCain was in a bad mood tonight. He ought to be a happy camper after his back to back wins, but he was surly; with a constant smirk on his face while the others were speaking.
That crack about Romney laying people off was childish.
infidel65 on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Romney wasn’t trying to play both sides, unless you think the troops were too. Read the frickin post. And watch the original exchange in question. McCain got this wrong, and then dug in and lied about it when he didn’t have to. He’s the front runner but he came off like a dishonest jerk in this exchange. It’s unlikely to cost him much, but it should. I just about loathe that guy after watching that exchange.
Bryan on January 30, 2008 at 10:16 PM
To make it worse, McCain did it AGAIN despite Romney correcting him before as did did Russert.
Now, who is it that ignores facts and keeps repeating spins and lies, even after being corrected or proven completely false? Liberals. McCain, you just showed your true self by openly showing the world that facts do not matter as much as the way you want to see them.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Hey, did you know McCain served in Vietnam?
Mr. Bingley on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I don’t see how McCain was being dishonest. He said that Romney wanted time tables because that’s what Romney said. Does it really matter if the time tables are public or private? Time tables are time tables.
SoulGlo on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Sooner or later? Try never.
TexasBella on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
The whole quote was read aloud and MCcain’s response is to try to redefine what the statement means. Clintonian response
Resolute on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 PM
McVain wins on smirks, hands down.
profitsbeard on January 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
McCain.
Listen up. You have become a shameful man. You’re proximity to the smarmy, arrogant, word twisting liberals of America’s enemy left has eclipsed the respect you used to merit.
I am sick and tired of you career bureaucrats denegrating good men by twisting their words to your political advantage.
You are beyond your skill. You are beyond you merit.
As I watched that clip I wanted to smack your smarmy self-satisfied smirk right off your face. But I wouldn’t do that. It would be wrong. Instead, I will let your soul-selling-self to rot of your own accord.
Senator McCain, redeploy yourself to Okinawa.
I will never vote for that man.
Montana on January 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I really wish someone would ask McCain if his favrite rock group is the Keating Five.
Mr. Bingley on January 30, 2008 at 10:18 PM
win you have anderson cooper telling you in his own way what you are saying is a lie well….
trailortrash on January 30, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Ron Paul made the similar reference tonight to Reagan when he first tried to run and failed. But when he did finally win, it turned out to be a wise presidency. Romney could be our next Reagan, then that would mean Hobama or McCain would be our next Jimmy Carter.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:19 PM
McFlip simply uses sophistry and demagogues Mitt by thowing Clinton trash.
Mitt is far better on all points as a candidate, but won’t get it because he won’t ridicule the falsehood and go after him. I would have been outraged.
The Clintons won’t have this problem, and McCain will get eaten alive at his own game. He will look pathetic by November and no one listened to the double standard falsehoods he preached with the righteousness of a lightning rod salesman.
The Democratic Party and NYT’s will get their wish in an ideal candidate.
Starlink on January 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM
win = when*
trailortrash on January 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM
I vote later.
Correction: I vote Tuesday. For Romney.
Once we have a nominee, then I’ll worry about whether I “need” to get behind McCain.
Until then, I don’t want to stand downwind of the crap he’s spewing.
sulla on January 30, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Yep, an no disrespect to his war or POW record. MUCH respect for that. But on the way he behaved tonight, being a war hero does not exempt you from being corrected or having your political policies criticized.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
I think that’s the case, which is why that quote is parsed.
Dude. Don’t I know it. It would so much easier to vote for this guy if I never heard or saw him.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Excellent analysis Bryan.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Exactly right. And he doesn’t take correction well, does he?
Mr. Bingley on January 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
snort!
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:22 PM
McAmnesty is a miserable, lying, nasty little man, the only person who could make the Dem candidates look good by comparison. It’s laughable that he’d whine about Mitt’s attack ads when he is (and has spent the last 30 years) sliming anyone who criticizes him in the least.
Shay on January 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM
can’t wait to hear Mark Levin tomorrow!
ctmom on January 30, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Yeah, I caught that too. Interesting that even the troops you spoke to were “iffy” on the surge. I was too, when it was first discussed. And as much as I’m a “McHead” and don’t trust Romney, I cannot fault him for that either.
JetBoy on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
McCain’s main defense at this point is that Mitt didn’t respond appropriately to the “buzzwords” and speak Washington’s code. That should work in Mitt’s favor, in my opinion. He tried to give an honest assessment based on what he knew instead of trying to go with Washington’s spin.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I can’t say exactly what Romney meant when he made the comment. He has been disingenuous at times, so it is possible that JayHaw is right. However, it is also possible that Romney was talking about timetables in the vaguer, broader sense, as he’s already shown that he will speak that way (I saw my father march with MLK). I will give Romney a pass on this, I think, and he came off as the better man in your clip, Bryan.
Connie on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
There you go guys. John’s sleazy tactics work!
Deety on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
With the amount of “dishonest” negative attack ads Romney has leveled against other candidates does it really matter. McCain is trying to make the point that Romney changes whenever it seems politically appropriate. He was attempting in December of 2006 and April 2007 to have it both ways just in case the surge failed. If it failed he could call for timetables and if it went well he could refer back to supporting the surge in late January. McCain is saying that he stood firm the entire time, no wavering. Now I don’t know if this quote was the best attack for McCain to prove his point. But Romney positioning himself throughout his political career is exactly why a good amount of republicans don’t trust Romney any more then McCain.
Complete7 on January 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Proof McCain knows he cannot beat Romney on merits and facts:
McCain refuses 1 on 1 with Romney
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Get real. We can’t keep state secrets secret. How long would it have taken those “private” benchmarks to become “public”? Half a New York minute.
tommylotto on January 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM
As a staunch Republican for 40 years, I will vote Dem if it is between a dishonest scumbag and a Democrat. The real problem arises if it’s between two patently dishonest politicians such as Hillary and McCain.
Alma on January 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM
YES! I figured out how to post a hyperlink! I am now promoted to alternate village idiot.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Have we become so PC that contrast ads are attack ads? Or are there a bunch out there I haven’t seen?
re:Romney and the surge. I said this the other day. Romney came out in support the surge the day it was announced. Just like Cheney.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 10:27 PM
I don’t think his ads are dishonest or attack ads in the sense of personal attacks. The ones I’ve seen are policy distinctions. I think as an electorate we need to be more tolerant of those kinds of ads.
If McCain can make his point stick about Romney shifting with the wind, so be it. But saying “I was for my own bill before I was against it” isn’t helping him.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM
As a staunch Republican for 40 years, I will vote Dem if it is between a dishonest scumbag and a Democrat. The real problem arises if it’s between two patently dishonest politicians such as Hillary and McCain.
Alma
I’d rather you vote independant thant that. It is one thing to take away a vote from a republican, it is another to GIVE it to a democrat/future Jimmy Carter II.
El Guapo on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM
McCain is a disaster waiting to happen.
spmat on January 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM
There is absolutely no doubt that Juan McCain is a lying rodent. What was interesting to me here was the facial expressions and body language. Whenever Romney was challenging Juan McCain, he put on a smug expression and pulled out a pen and made notes. That speaks of somebody attempting to further lies instead of somebody reacting to the fact that the guy next to him just called him a liar.
You might spin this as “typical politics” and the way debates occur but I didn’t get any of that from Juan’s behavior. He knows Romney is right and simply wants to get to the point where he can slime somebody else. I will never EVER vote for Juan McCain- even if that puts another Clinton in power.
highhopes on January 30, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Write in Fred if you have to. Or better yet, write in Reagan. But don’t vote for the dems.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Also, while Romney was hedging, McCain was strolling through Baghdad markets saying it was safe — when it was not. McCain was a cheerleader for our efforts in Iraq all along — he even put his high value target ass on the line to prove it. He deserves all the credit he claims.
tommylotto on January 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Where’s O’R’s body language expert when you need her?
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I don’t buy the change on immigration either.
He was seething on his bill at the time, and despite his crass ‘change of heart’ he will NOT secure the border, do biometric cards and the rest. He was caught in NH 2 weeks ago trying to nuance this and tried to get even with the questioner by using a soldier’s alien mother/patriotic shame game. He never changes.
Crazy John is always about settling scores. Never listening.
Starlink on January 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM
How about a serving of McCain’s timetables? He sponsored a Senate resolution in January 2007 which laid out benchmarks to prepare the way to withdraw from Iraq. Benchmarks are not open-ended. They are reviewed for effectiveness, and re-evaluated as necessary.
Don’t believe me? It’s in the Washington Post.
It would take three to six months after the deployment of the new troops, which is possible in May, to know whether the Iraqi government was making progress in meeting the benchmarks, McCain said.
“It’s taken us four years to get into this debacle and it’s going to take some time to get us out,” he said.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Fred, you left us a mess and no mistake.
It was swell to take on Huckabee, but you really really oughter have been kneecapping McCain. From the day he passed you. Just in case, you know, it came to this.
TexasDan on January 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Heh. What he is really saying that he can’t vote for the d*mn bill thanks to the d*mn American people.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM
So, he was lying to us again?
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Me too, Bryan.
I tried to have an open mind tonight. I wanted to give McCain a fresh start to win me over.
I came away despising him more than I did this morning. Let’s face it, he’s just a sleazeball. Clintonesque in his demeanor and non-answers.
I also came to the conclusion that it will be ok to vote for Hillary in November. If we are to have a Clinton in the White House, it might as well be the real thing.
BacaDog on January 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
McCain = Knob-shining-pole-smoking-retard.
Thank you Goodnight.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
as a businessman let me tell you: to achieve goals you must ahve timetables and mileposts.
now, maybe old angry farts who fester in the cloakrooms of the greatest debating club in the world don’t understand that, but that’s the way of the REAL world.
a world romney knows - and has mastered the real world far greater than that old angry liberal puke mccain.
i will never vote for mccain.
i don’t care if he’s running against eugene v debs or lenin.
reliapundit on January 30, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Mitt did a good job defending his position. To close the deal however, he should’ve rightfully accused McCain of talking about the same damn timetables and benchmarks during roughly the same period of time.
Like I said earlier, Missed missed an opportunity to brand McCain as dishonest while letting people know that he himself was not making McCain’s position an issue because it was the right thing to do.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Fixed it.
CliffHanger on January 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Per McCain - don’t you dare utter the word “timetable” or you’re for withdrawal.
What a lying, pathetic, idiotic jerk. How pathetic is that? This man has no honor, he has no sense of right or wrong. He is just a despicable liar who will say anything to get power. I will never, ever vote for this man. For anything. Even if it means Hitlery wins. This man needs to just go retire with Juan Hernandez and go away.
jdawg on January 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
The reason is simple: Senator John McCain (war hero) IS NEVER WRONG!
He could’ve easily let it go, it would’ve benefitted him to let it go, especially now that everyone admits that it was an unfair smear.
Yet he didn’t.
Because principles, allies, or the truth always take a back seat to the image of St. John of the Sacred Straight Talk.
billy on January 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Thank you For your intellectual honesty!!!!!
THATS the Conservative type “I” Know!!!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM
How has come to this?
There is only one word I can think of:
Illuminati.
I picked a bad year to stop sniffing glue.
Dorvillian on January 30, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Stay classy Time blogger live from the debate.
terryannonline on January 30, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Romney is officially made of awesome from now on!
madame_bluetooth on January 30, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I love how McCain rationalized his attack on Mitt using the term “buzzwords.” I guess we ignore honest analysis because someone uses the wrong “buzzword.”
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
This episode illustrated exactly what I can’t stand about McCain. He comes off as a total jerk here. His attack was dishonest, asinine, and egotistical. I was standing up yelling at the television during this. Ridiculous.
CP on January 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
And I too have come around to this position from the more RINOish end of the Republican Party. He has overcome my reservations about a Mormon President–reservations I hold without apology to the Mormons reading this. On the other hand, everything I learn about McCain disgust me more and more.
thuja on January 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Jerk McCain needs to take a hike.
BKennedy on January 30, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Video clip of what Romney said exactly.
Jay on January 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Might I add, McCain’s “I was a POW,” is Gulianni’s “9-11!”
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Please Noooooooo - If it ever did turn out to be McCain against Hillary (or Obama even)… Nightmares…… I might vote Democrat as the lesser of 2 evils aginst McCain? Now that is very scarey thought when Mitt is at this point the most genuine/only republican candidate left and someone I would vote for easily.
wubu on January 30, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Bryan, I can’t agree with you more. This episode, and the complete rejection/ignorance McCain displays when it comes to the business world/capitalist system with his “people lost jobs” quote pretty much put me over the edge in terms of not voting for McCain. Bloody hell, does McCain not get that if a business is not profitable or performing to a certain standard, changes must be made (i.e.: jobs cut). Is McCain just trying to score points here or is he really displaying his ignorance about how our system works? Is he saying that, should he take office, he would not cut jobs from Federal departments that aren’t performing properly? I thought he was all for reducing spending? If McCain truly wants to reduce Federal spending, you have to cut back the massive bureaucracy here in DC. It is out of control. This debate just added to the number of questions I have about this man.
I’d rather see an anti-capitalist Democrat in the White House for 4 years than an anti-capitalist Republican.
The Hort on January 30, 2008 at 10:47 PM
McCain is employing the classic strawman argument. It’s a fallacy, of course, but it’s used all the time.
Distort or misrepresent your opponent’s position in order to attack it and make (pun intended) political hay.
eanax on January 30, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Yeah man, he’s beginning to sound just like Kerry. John McKerry? John McKern?
Credit where credit is due, thank you for your service, but McCain says that because he led a squadron during the war, that automatically makes him CinC material. John Kerry also led a few men during the war, does that make me wanna vote for him too? I prefer an ex-military Prez, but not if he’s a political lefty or centrist.
Also, mitt was right about Gov’s vs. Sen’s.
Tony737 on January 30, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Mark me down as someone who will never vote for McCain, also.
tommuck on January 30, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Then McKern says “Reagan would not have changed his mind on abortion.” HotHeads, correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t that EXACTLY what Reagan did?
Tony737 on January 30, 2008 at 10:52 PM
No, there is another choice. I won’t stay home. Obama is a more principled man than McCain. But, they both love Fat Teddy(wink).
a capella on January 30, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Screw McCain, I know what I said today about swallowing a pill, pulling the lever for McCain for the troops, and never, ever telling anyone about it.
F-That, I’m going down with Romney if that’s what’s to be.
I can’t vote for McCain. He’s just the wrong choice.
Anyone out there voting on Tuesday really needs to think about the impact of what a vote for McCain over Romney means.
1. He’s old Washington.
Romney doesn’t owe anyone anything. For those of you who say he’s spent too much of his own money because he’s rich, isn’t that a good thing? He owes no special interests.
2. He will change the face of this country regarding ILLEGAL immigration. If you don’t believe that, you’re not paying attention. (Google Juan Hernandez)
Romney will keep the borders in check by forcing the attrition and also through enforcement.
3. He will degrade freedom of speech, i.e. McCain/Feingold.
Romney has no problem with Freedom of Speech.
4. He doesn’t know about the economy.
Romney has plans. When he talked about an economy with safety relief valves, I don’t know what he meant by that but I know it sounds a hell of a lot more secure than McCain’s, “I don’t know about the economy and numbers and junk.”
5. He gives vague answers.
Romney has accurate, detailed plans. I never knew what the hell “Fees” meant until tonight. I understand now, state fees. I get it.
Look, I’m a blue jeans and t-shirt guy. I live week to week. I drive 80 miles total every day to work. It takes a toll on gas. I’m scared to death of the economy tanking. I pay into social security every week but I KNOW I’ll never see it when I’m old.
I drive to work in the morning and I’ve seen vans full of Mexicans workers with tinted windows, low key and a Mexican is driving. You just know, you know? I live in New England. I can imagine what it’s like down south. I’ve seen it there too. I grew up in Northern California; I’ve lived in Fresno as well. I’ve seen the illegal immigration up close and personal. I know what I’m talking about.
I’ve had a few beers so this is a little choppy but these are strenuous times, ya know?
K, I’ve said my peace but I’d like to hear a hell yeah or and Amen if you’re in the same boat I am.
Geronimo for Romney 08
Geronimo on January 30, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Every so often I wonder if I could pinch my nose and pull the lever for McAmnesty if it came to it.
He is a slimeball, and I cannot stand his horsebeans.
I pull the lever for Romney on March 4th (Ohio).
I’ll consider other actions as needed (i.e. writing in fred) if it comes to that.
knob on January 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM
You could say that. He was lying to improve morale at home and in support of the war effort. Sort of like saying Tillman died a hero fighting the enemy. It helps the war effort and makes everyone, including the family, feel better, whereas the truth hurts the effort and makes everyone feel rotten. I have no problem with those types of lies
tommylotto on January 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Fully agree. Also, note that McCain was asked why he’d be a better leader of the economy than Romney, and he mentioned in his response that he led an US navy squadron. No disrespect to navy commanders, but funny how CEO’s don’t get appointed based on that background.
Mitt OTOH wished that he had served, but after that due deference, noted why he was better suited to run things. Ron Paul’s response here wasn’t bad either, although not one that a frontrunner like Mitt could have peddled out.
As for McCain’s lies, in addition to the one about Romney’s support for the surge, he also peddled out one about how the MA Lt governor endorsed him - something that Romney corrected. Also, somehow, we Republicans are supposed to back McCain because the Boston Herald, NYT, AZ Republic and other newspapers have endorsed him? Please - he wouldn’t be my choice even if Romney dropped out tomorrow: I’d sooner back Huck or Ron, and in the general elections, Obama. If it was McCain vs Hilary, I’d do something I rarely do in political confrontations - stay neutral. Here, I think I actually could.
infidelpride on January 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Geronimo: Hell, yeah.
Shay on January 30, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I think so. He changed his mind on a lot of issues and then became the great voice for conservatism. But if you go back far enough, you could call him a flip-flopper. We need to welcome people who see the light, but have the wisdom to discern them from the panderers. And that’s the rub.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM
It’s definitely #2…in more ways than one with McCain.
SouthernGent on January 30, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I know this board is Anti McCain, but sooner or later, we all need to get behind him or concede to Hobama.
I would vote for Huck. I would vote for Rudy. I would vote for Dole. I would vote for a bag of dirt, heck,, I would vote for Bill Clinton, but I will not vote for McCain.
JellyToast on January 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM
You’ll get what you deserve then on election Day…
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Fair enough. But I’d prefer an honest assessment and a plan to repair what’s broken. And maybe McCain had that, too, at that time. I don’t think I was following him closely enough during that time frame to answer that.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Dude.
TX Mom on January 30, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Juan McCain’s key Phrases:
Reagan foot soldier
Pork barrel spending
I was there with Jack Kemp, yada, yada.
Reagan Revolution.
It’s not amnesty.
It won’t come to a vote.
I just don’t get it and I’m sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. I know this is like pissing in Lake Michigan but I have three things as an American who gives a shit.
I have my Vote and I use it.
I have my voice and I annoy people with it.
I have my wallet and I pay attention to who I DON’T give money to. I’m talking to you Miller!!!
Geronimo on January 30, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Thank you TX Mom. Changing your mind and going back and forth are two different things. I’m pretty sure in at least of the books I’ve read about the Great One, he was pro-hoice then, as you said, saw the light.
Tony737 on January 30, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 »